Justification of the Atomic Bombs

Сообщение от TheMediator

That's the way the world works unfortunately.

It'd be nice to dream of some powerful wholly neutral force that acts to enforce some fair set of morality, but that's not the way the world works.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

That's the way the world works unfortunately.

It'd be nice to dream of some powerful wholly neutral force that acts to enforce some fair set of morality, but that's not the way the world works.

See I'm not talking about 'how the world works.' I know how it works already....we blow up innocent people in the name of justice and condemn those who blow us up (e.g. 9/11 ).

I'm saying there are some actions that are just wrong, and the killing of innocents is one of them--whether the loser or the winner does them.

Сообщение от TheMediator

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

That's why I'm saying it was wrong to convict Nazi leaders of war crimes, because if we're not going to throw out own leaders in jail for war crimes, then we have no right to throw enemy leaders in jail.

I disagree with that. Just because one isn't being held accountable doesn't mean we should throw everything to the wind and not hold anyone accountable.

I don't support the conviction of the Nazis because America did it, I support it because it was the right thing to do.

Сообщение от 122776

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

One thing to remember about everything while we dropped the first bomb without warning we warned them about the second but they didn't give up

They were 'giving up' even before we dropped the bomb.

It's really hard to say what would have been justified because the views at the time are so different from the views today.
Views have nothing to do with objective justification.

Сообщение от Avallen

That's the way the world works unfortunately.

It'd be nice to dream of some powerful wholly neutral force that acts to enforce some fair set of morality, but that's not the way the world works.

QFT.

What's that old saying? In war, there is no right and wrong? There is no innocent and guilty? War is unfortunate, and I'd love to live in a world where there is none. But that's not the way it works. It's a dog-eat-dog world, and you're either the hunter or the prey. Someone has to come out on top.

tl;dr: Idealism is foolish and blind.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

tl;dr: Idealism is foolish and blind.

Belief in good and evil =/= idealism

I'm very much a realist, and I very much believe that killing innocents is evil, wrong, perverted, and sick. 'That it happens' is no justification.

Сообщение от Skyfire

One thing to remember about everything while we dropped the first bomb without warning we warned them about the second but they didn't give up

They were 'giving up' even before we dropped the bomb.

You have yet to support this opinion adequately.

It's really hard to say what would have been justified because the views at the time are so different from the views today.
Views have nothing to do with objective justification.

Much as you would like to believe, justification is subjective. Objective justification doesn't exist. Circumstances change.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

You have yet to support this opinion adequately.
First-hand accounts from those in a position to know. Better than your second-hand accounts (none of which you provided, making them third-hand accounts).

Much as you would like to believe, justification is subjective. Objective justification doesn't exist. Circumstances change.
Circumstances change. Yes.
That changes the judgment of the action in no way.

Actions are objectively and rightfully judged based the 'milieu' (for lack of a better term) in which the action occurred.

Views have nothing to do with the matter. Just because someone is colorblind doesn't change anything about the actual color of the object; likewise, how I or anyone views an action has no effect on the nature of the action itself.

Сообщение от 240135

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

edit: hyper, in the case of the colorblind person, the color of the object is different for them, it's just that the society around them views the color differently, and since the rest agree, the person can be convinced that the rest are right, but if a member of that society around them was the only one in a group of people who viewed more of the electromagnetic spectrum, or a different part (i.e. only infrared), they would be the colorblind one).

I'm talking about color blindness where everything (or several colors) are gray. I have a friend that can't tell red and green apart. The objects are objectively reflecting different waves, yet she sees only one. But that's beside the point.

My point is that human points of view on something have no effect on it. Circumstances, intention, and the act itself all are part of it, but what I think, or what people thought 80 years ago has no effect.

Сообщение от TheMediator

I'm talking about color blindness where everything (or several colors) are gray. I have a friend that can't tell red and green apart. The objects are objectively reflecting different waves, yet she sees only one. But that's beside the point.

I get what you're attempting to say. Color come from the fact that certain waves are of different lengths. Just because we perceive those waves differently doesn't mean those waves themselves are of different composition.

Anyways hyper, their point is you may say "This is good, this is bad", but you cannot say that your system of morality is better or worse than someone elses or the "right" system.

Сообщение от 229054

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

Сообщение от TheMediator

Anyways hyper, their point is you may say "This is good, this is bad", but you cannot say that your system of morality is better or worse than someone elses or the "right" system.

The very fact that there can be morality assumes that there must be first principles, otherwise there wouldn't even be morality.
So things like "Good must be done and evil avoided." If you understand what good and evil are, then that is a self-known principle. Based on this and other principles, certain things can be known about actions.

Killing innocents is wrong (by innocent we mean not deserving to die). Now if circumstances change the killing or the innocent part, then that's a different issue.

How do you know that killing innocents is wrong? And since I know the response you will give to that, How do you know that the source that you gained that information from is reliable? You don't. YOU DO NOT KNOW. So you can't say that you know what is or isn't wrong. Only what you think you know is right or wrong.

Сообщение от Skyfire

You have yet to support this opinion adequately.
First-hand accounts from those in a position to know. Better than your second-hand accounts (none of which you provided, making them third-hand accounts).

No, those in a position who thought they knew. Big difference there. Your quotes were cherrypicked, to boot.

As for my accounts, you can look that up yourself. The information is easily found that supports my view.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

As for my accounts, you can look that up yourself. The information is easily found that supports my view.

I'll I've ever seen is probably this and probably that....

People shouldn't be slaughtered on probably.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

How do you know that the source that you gained that information from is reliable? You don't. YOU DO NOT KNOW. So you can't say that you know what is or isn't wrong. Only what you think you know is right or wrong.

Do you not understand the concept of self-evident?

Сообщение от Skyfire

I'll I've ever seen is probably this and probably that....

People shouldn't be slaughtered on probably.

War shouldn't happen. But it does. Attempting to justify your position simply with "that's not how rational people should work"... doesn't work in context.

War isn't rational except in the context of risk assessment. Which is the more rational choice to save our people (not all people. Our.)? Drop the bomb, or take the risk that Japan will become a bloodbath, or hope that Japan won't become a bloodbath.

Case 1: They die. We don't.
Case 2: We both die.
Case 3: No one dies.

But given the behavior of the Japanese prior to the drop (see any battle in the Pacific), which are the most likely? Cases 1 and 2.

Which one causes less loss to our side and has the lowest risk attached to it? Obviously, case 1.

This is why what the various uniformed personnel said was spin. Would you rather judge a people by how they do act, or by how your military thinks they'll act?

Justification of the Atomic Bombs

Ответить